On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Just a reminder to everyone. Hyrum had indicated he intends to roll
>>>>> SVN 1.5.1 next week. We should try to get STATUS cleared out before
>>>>> this week. It'd be good if we could run through all the tests on the
>>>>> branch so that there are no surprises that causes us to burn a release
>>>>> number next week.
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume no work has gone into making svn mv not create mergeinfo if
>>>>> it does not have to?
>>>>
>>>> AFAIK nothing has been done on that yet.
>>>>
>>>>> I have not seen anything in STATUS that looks
>>>>> like it has been fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a lot of merge fixes nominated. These resolve most, if not
>>>>> all, of the problems that keep us from being able to use merge in our
>>>>> own repository. It'd be nice to get these into 1.5.1.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I can merge these
>>>>
>>>> Issue #3067 could really use a long look by someone familiar with the
>>>> merge tracking code before going into 1.5.1.
>>>
>>> Yes, I'd likewise add that it seems to fix most of our problems so it
>>> would be a shame if it does not get reviewed in time to make it into
>>> 1.5.1.
>>
>> +1
>>
>>>>> cleanly and all tests pass, are people OK with me
>>>>> adding a +1 on those items? I cannot do much more review than that.
>>>>
>>>> Before you try let me forewarn you that the many merge tracking
>>>> related fixes (notably the issue #3157, #3199, #3174, and #3067
>>>> groups) are very interdependent and backporting any single one of them
>>>> varies in difficulty from difficult to basically impossible. I can
>>>> put together a backport branch for these four issues together if that
>>>> will help.
>>>
>>> I cannot really answer, but I do not see how they will get reviewed or
>>> backported if they cannot be merged. Whether they should be combined
>>> into one review branch, or multiple is what I cannot answer.
>>
>> If anyone who has dealt with this situation in the past has any words
>> of wisdom please raise your hand!
>>
>> In the meantime I'll look again to see if there is some reasonable
>> order these can be backported individually to facilitate review.
>
> A backport branch for the issue #3157 group is ready:
>
> http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/branches/1.5.x-issue3157
>
> Mark/C-Mike - Karl and I have already approved these changes, both of
> you previously reviewed all but the later additions r31391, r31398,
> and r31482. If you have chance to look at just those three changes we
> can get this group in.
Disregard that, Mike already voted for the 3157 (and 3199) groups a 15
minutes ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-07-14 19:20:18 CEST